It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again.

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; You cannot win the SB without a top 10 defense. Period.
See '99-'00 Rams.
If our O was firing on all cylinders we would have had an excellent chance to at least GET to the SB, with the abysmal state ...

If our O was firing on all cylinders we would have had an excellent chance to at least GET to the SB, with the abysmal state the NFC was in last year.

Are you guys gonna tell me that we wouldn't have pulled some of those lost games out last year had we scored on the first drive???

For those of you who have never actually played the game of football....scoring first has a psychological effect on the game. 3 and outs can change the complexion quickly. Obviously it's reflected in the stats.

I'm willing to say that the D has far more pressing issues than the O. That's why I think it's imperative that the O comes with it's "A" game to compensate for our weakness, which is the D.

Brooks supporters are saying "He's the best we have so we just have to deal with him as our starter all season, so long as he doesn't get hurt."

That's a loser's mentality. The case SHOULD be that NO ONE is beyond reproach and no one is indispensable. I say if he struggles the first two or so games, yank him and put McPherson in. Is Brooks better....absolutely, but he shouldn't be untouchable because of that fact.

Brooks supporters are saying "He's the best we have so we just have to deal with him as our starter all season, so long as he doesn't get hurt."

That's a loser's mentality. The case SHOULD be that NO ONE is beyond reproach and no one is indispensable. I say if he struggles the first two or so games, yank him and put McPherson in. Is Brooks better....absolutely, but he shouldn't be untouchable because of that fact.

No I think what they as saying and I have to agree with is that Brooks right now is better than Amac so go with Brooks.

IF you don't know my opinion bye now you never will. DOn't you know how to bring something up that has not been beaten to death. the soda pop is saturated quick put some vodka in it next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good work SFIAH. Sound argument and a nice pre-emptive strike. I also enjoyed your blame analysis - I tend to agree (but you knew that).

Of course, garnering agreement on a Brooks debate is impossible, but I did enjoy your work.

I guess, I don't agree that there is nothing to talk about regarding Brooks until the defense is fixed. It seems to me that several things can be fixed at once. Just because there is an order of need, it doesn't necessitate an order of correction. It seems to me quite possible to think that the Defense is the biggest problem but Brooks is the most pressing need.

Consider the following: The defense is so bad that adding 2-3 players will only make it average. Also, opposing teams will be able to neutralize the benefits of adding those 2-3 players by game planning and keying on their weaknesses. On the other hand, the only problem with the offense, stacked with pro-bowlers along the line, at WR, and at RB, is the fact that the QB would be a 3rd stringer on any other team. It seems to me that fixing the QB would make the team very dangerous on one side of the ball - and give the team a chance of winning a couple of games - whereas fixing the D, which makes sense given how awful they are in this fictional example, would lead to little to no improvement. At any rate, I'm sure you take the point.

Either way, I'm with you - Brooks is not the biggest problem, and some games (like the last four of last season you mention) he isn't a problem at all (even when he is up to his old tricks). A good point, I think.

I further agree that the A-Mac point is moot. He hasn't even taken a snap against another NFL team (not even their 3rd stringers). Let's wait before we get caught up in this hype... for a change.

... the Falcons' defense went from 32nd in the league in 2003 to 14th in 2004. They dropped the defensive scoring average by 5 PPG.

I think you might have had something going, but missed the boat here. The Falcons team DID improve cause Vick returned, know why? Cause he made their offense better, and more efficient. With him, they led the league in rushing. What does rushing the football do? Eat the clock, and allows your D to rest.

I'm in perfect agreement with that. Atlanta was #1 in rushing the ball and #10 in stopping the run.

But now it's back to blame assignement. We didn't rush the ball well last year finishing 27th with 100 YPG. We finished 30th in stopping the run. Each of the final 4 teams last year with the exception of Philly was in the top 10 in both rushing and rushing defense.

My point is the Brooks is only a minimal contributor to those stats. Yet he continues to be the focal point, the poster child, of the Saints' not being able to take it to the next level. I find that curious.

I just keep questioning the IMHO mistaken belief that if Brooks somehow turned into Peyton Manning, that all of a sudden this team would win the SB or be ultra successful. It's not just the QB.

To illustrate I point you to two contemporary QBs: Brooks and Tom Brady. "No comparison!" most would scream. But take a look at their career stats:

You'll find they are simply not that dissimilar other than the disparity in completion percentage.

But then go take a look at the defensive scoring ranks: 6,17,1,2 the last 4 years for NE and 26,27,14,27 for the Saints. In those 4 years the Saints have simply broken even while the Pats have won 3 SBs.

... the Falcons' defense went from 32nd in the league in 2003 to 14th in 2004. They dropped the defensive scoring average by 5 PPG.

I think you might have had something going, but missed the boat here. The Falcons team DID improve cause Vick returned, know why? Cause he made their offense better, and more efficient. With him, they led the league in rushing. What does rushing the football do? Eat the clock, and allows your D to rest.

I'm in perfect agreement with that. Atlanta was #1 in rushing the ball and #10 in stopping the run.

But now it's back to blame assignement. We didn't rush the ball well last year finishing 27th with 100 YPG. We finished 30th in stopping the run. Each of the final 4 teams last year with the exception of Philly was in the top 10 in both rushing and rushing defense.

My point is the Brooks is only a minimal contributor to those stats. Yet he continues to be the focal point, the poster child, of the Saints' not being able to take it to the next level. I find that curious.

I just keep questioning the IMHO mistaken belief that if Brooks somehow turned into Peyton Manning, that all of a sudden this team would win the SB or be ultra successful. It's not just the QB.

To illustrate I point you to two contemporary QBs: Brooks and Tom Brady. "No comparison!" most would scream. But take a look at their career stats:

You'll find they are simply not that dissimilar other than the disparity in completion percentage.

But then go take a look at the defensive scoring ranks: 6,17,1,2 the last 4 years for NE and 26,27,14,27 for the Saints. In those 4 years the Saints have simply broken even while the Pats have won 3 SBs.

But of course it's all about the QBs.

SFIAH

SFIAH, I know, I mean, I just know, you are not gonna dumb down this argument with the stats in a vacuum nonsense again. You are a smart guy, and make good arguments, but when you fall in line with the stas in a vacuum argument you are as bad as Billy was with his Brooks is as good as Elway and Peyton Manning garbage. IF NFL history has shown anything, stats are not the end all when judging QBs, and you know that, so I have no idea why you would try to take that tact. I will bet my remaining paychecks for the rest of the year you could not find one NFL player, exec, scout, owner, coach(outside of one of these each on the Saints team) that would say Brooks is a more cerebral QB than Brady, or has more "it" than Brady, or has the intangibles every coach wants out of their QB. These are factors outside of simply STATS that are analyzed. You argument was better than that, don't fall into the stats in a vacuum trap. That's a losing argument every time.

And on the Falcons, here's where you again lose that argument. Were the Falcons able to score in the first quarter? First half? Were they able to sustain drives that kept their D off the field, thus lowering an opposing team's ability to rack up yards on their D, and not forcing themsevles to have to throw the whole second half? Yup. Were we? Not even close. Our rushign numbers were so low caus eoutside of Deuce's injury, we did NOTHING in the first half of what, 12 staright games? 13? We couldn't even run in the second half cause our offense gave us nothing in the first, kept the D on the field with three and outs and horrible turnovers, and we had to play catch up. IF we fielded a decent offense to start games, I guarantee our defense would have looked better. They may have been 28 in yard sinstead of 32, but that difference might have been enough to get them in the playoffs. Look at the Rams defense. The Colts. Would you prefer to never make the playoffs, or have Peyton Manning at least giving you a CHANCE to go somewhere every year? Whethe rhe has won anythng or not, i'll take Peyton and a chance over Brooks and no shot any day.